G.E. Moore: naturalistic fallacy

• Moore argued that concepts such as happiness, fitness, health, desire, pleasure » they are all non-moral concepts

  • there’s nothing intrinsically good about them

• therefore, defining good in terms of what makes you ‘happy’ or ‘healthy’ are open to question, as not everyone will agree that they’re good in every situation

the is-ought problem

• eg: murder is wrong » you ought not to murder

• eg: kindness is good » you ought to be kind

• s.a. burns argued that offering a description/definition of ‘good’ leads implicitly or even explicitly to the moral prescription that we should do what is defined as ‘good

• then comes the ‘is-ought’ problem